Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ranjeet Kumar vs Rrc (S E Railway) on 2 March, 2022
/. 0.A. No. 350/1664/2019 1 -- i , 5 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA . O.A. No. 350/1664/2019 Date of Order: 2-™%> 2.02. Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member In the matter of: Ranjeet Kumar, aged about 35 years, Male, S/o Shudhanshu Yadav,' R/o Village and P.O.- Neema Chandpura, District- Begusarai -- 851 101 (Bihar). seeeeaee Applicant. -Versus- 1. Union of India through the Chairman ~ (Rectt.) Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway, 11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata -- 700 043. . 2. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, 11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata -- 700 043. 3. The Assistant Personnel Officer (Rect.) Railway Recruitment Cell, South. Eastern Railway-ll, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata -- 700 043. beneues Respondents For The Applicant(s) <: Mr. P. Kashyap, Counsel For The Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Choudhury, Counsel Oa. No, 350/1668/2019 2 ORDER Per Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (J):
1. id, Counsels were heard.
2, This application has been filed to seek the following reliefs:
"H} Anorder / direction thereby directing the respondents to. consider as per rules the prayer of the applicant for medical _ examination for recruitment of TRACKIMAN, HELPER ~ ETC in §.E, Railway pursuant to Employment Notice No, SER / RRC f 2 / 2012 DATED 29.09.2012 a3 he bas already cleared written examination, PET and verification of documents but without uny communication from Mie respondents side. {ii} Consequently for an order / direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for recruitment on the sulteble Group ~ OD. Past with ail consequential benefits.
fi) An arder directing the authorities to produce the entire records of the case at the time of adjudication for conscionable justice, {iv} Any other erder or further order / orders as ta this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
3, The brief facts leading to the application, are as under:
The Applicant applied against O8C (04) category for recruitment of Trackman Helper-ll ete, In SE Railway, against Employment Notice No. SER/RRC/2/2012 dated 29.09.2012 (Annx.-A/1). He was called for written examinations held on 01.12.2013 and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 45.02.2014. On both the occasions, the admit cards issued to him wrongly mentioned his category as UR (O1) though he had applied in OBC (04).
Alangwith his application dated 01.01.2013, he had annexed his caste certificate dated 01.12.2012 as In Annex.-R/1 of rejoinder, certifying his caste as Yadav (Gwala} which falls under OBC category. Vide his OA, No, I50/1 664/208 a 3 Objection/Representation dated 25.11.2013 (Annx.-R/4 of rejoinder), he objected to it, but he was verbally assured that the discrepancies would be later on removed. Later, when he was not called for Medical and DV after neessant representations, he was constrained to file the present O.A, an 13.12.2019.
4. Vide order dated 15.03.2024, this Tribunal directed the respondents to disclose the merit list of the selection and indicate the position of the applicant in the said fist.
Pursuant fo the said direction, the respondent filed their written statement in which they disclosed that the applicant had applied as a UR candidate who secured a total of 70 marks in written examination and after normalization, his score stood at $2.84 marks and that as his score after normalization in written test Is below the cut-off marks obtained by the last ampanelled UR candidate, ie, 84.32 marks, he was not found eligible to be called for Document Verification. Therefore, question of sanding him for medical examination did not arise.
5. The applicant alleges that the respondent's contention is palpably false, mistaading as well a5 4 manipulated one, in as much as the Applicant on 91.01.2013 applied for Group 'D' post in OBC (04) category in support of which he had enclosed and annexed the caste certificate dated 01.12.2012 'duly issued by the 5DO, Begusaral, Bihar in.which it has been specifically mentioned that the applicant belongs to Yadav (Gwala) caste which is under OBC category. Even otherwise as a Yadav, the applicant could not have belonged to UR category, and no prudent person would ever wish to disqualify himself by furnishing incorrect information, OA. No. 350/1864/2019 A That even in the Employment Notification Noe SER/RRC/02/2012, clause 8.8.5 explicitly mandates that before applying to the post, candidates should ensure that he/she fulfils the eligibility and other criteria, RRI-GER would be free to reject any application not fulfilling that requisite criteria, at any stage of recruitment, and if erroneously appointed, such candidates would be liable for termination of service without notice, But in the present case, the respondents processed the applicant's candidature up to the stage of PET which implies that the application candidature of the applicant was called Into question or cancelled at any point of time, That the applicant qualified at the written examination under relaxed standards meant for OBC candidate and therefore he was further subjected to the PET and was permitted to appear at the PET, That the applicant is in possession of latest certificates from campetent authority for example his caste certificate dated 01.12.2012 which he enclosed with his application dated 01.01.2013, certificate dated 25.05.2015, which he has enclosed with this 0.A., and certificate dated 18.01.2016. Hence the respondents cannot allege that he was not possessing OBC certificate at the time of application. The applicant would aflege that the respondents have intentionally removed and manipulated with the caste certificate dated 01.12.2012 from the record in order to save their callar and hence the applicant prays that entire case record may kindly be called for from the respondents in the interest of justice.
That in the present OA filed by the applicant, in Para 9{f), has no where stated that he applied in UR category rather inadvertently due to typing error, OA, No, 350/1664/2019 5 it has been erroneously prayed that one post of Group D post be kept reserved in UR category as an interim relief.
That had the applicant be treated as OBC candidate; he would have definitely qualified with 82.84 marks in OBC.
_ That the applicant applied under RTI Act for a copy of his application dated 01.01.2013 upon which the respondent supplied the cepy, perusing with bare eyes it would be seen that at column 11 Le. community {01}, category has been written by erasing (04) which had been mentioned by the applicant. This fact also gets established by looking at the right hand side upper corner of application where (04) has been mentioned meaning thereby that the applicant's application was kept under (04) category lot. Hence, the respondents have committed forgery and manipulation by erasing (04) and instead making it as (01) in column 11 which would be clear by calling the. records of this case before this Hon'ble Tribunal for proper adjudication, That in similar circumstances and on identical facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2018 passed in 0A. No. 842/2015 (Shankar Kurnar vs UOl) (Annx.- R/5 to the rejoinder) has been pleased to allow the OA directing the authorities to process the application beyond the stage of PET under relaxed standards as meant for GBC for dorument verification etc. and issue appropriate order if found entitled to and deserving of an appointment against an OBC vacancy. The applicant claim that the said applicant, Shankar Kumar, has been duly sent for document verification and medical by the respondents and has been duly appointed currently at Bokaro, Jharkhand by the respondents. Hence, the present applicant under identical circumstances deserves the same relief, OA No, S50/1684/2019 6 That the applicant has come out successful through different phases of selection whether it is the written examination or PET, one after another without any question being raised or being alleged of any anomaly at any stage whatsoever, The authorities cannot defeat his claim by adopting malpractices and committing forgery to oust his claim. That the acts and omissions an the part of respondents in not considering the candidature of the applicant is arbitrary, vexatious and iNegal which cannot be allowed to sustain when similarly situated and on the same sets of facts and circumstances of the case, Shankar Kumar In OA No, 842/2015 has been appointed after interference of this Tribunal, That the respondent authorities cannot deprive the applicant of his legitimate aspirations, that too by playing malpractices and forgery in his application who has already qualified in earlier stages of recruitment process, There is gross discrimination in the case of the applicant when his case is not being considered.
6. _ The respondents on the other hand would submit that the petitioner had applied for recruitment in Gr. D post in scale Rs. §200-20,200/- in PB-1 with GP-1800/- against EN No: SER/RRC/2/2012 as a UR candidate was called for written test held on 01.12.2013. After coming out successful in the written test, he was called for PET held at SERSA Stadium, Kharagpur on 15.02.2014. ' He had secured a@ total of 70 marks in the written examination and after normalisation, his score stood at 82.84 marks. As his score after narmalisation m the written examination is below the cut-off marks obtained by the last empanelled UR candidate, ie. R432 marks, he was not found eligible to be called for document verification as per extant rules.
ue, CANO, 350/1664/2019 7 The respondents have firmly denied that he had stated his community in his application form as OBC, as he was called for both written examination and PET as UR candidate and the petitioner was well aware of the community indicated in both the call letters, copies whereof have been enclosed.
The respondents would allege that the "petitioner has now annexed a copy of his OBC certificate issued on 29.12.2015 (copy enclosed) whereas the selection process for the Employment Notice No: SER/RRC/2/2012 was held in the years 2013 and 2014 respectively and he is well aware that he had failed to furnish his caste certificate as OBC at that material time."
"Thus it is very clear that at the time of submitting his application form, he had no OBC certificate and now he is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal by making false statements."
7. The rival contentions were considered, records perused.
The discernible facts are as under:
{i} Admittedly the applicant is a Yadav and belong to OBC category as evident from caste certificate dated 25.01.2008 (R-2} and two candidates with surname Yadav, have been appointed under OBC category as in Annexure Ri page No. 20 of reply at St. No. 18 and 24 respectively. fi Annexure A6 to the OA, the application form explicitly reveals that the - applicant had mentioned his category as 04, that ts meant for OBC. (iii} Applicant claimed to have preferred representations dated 17.07.2015 and 25.10.2016, the receipt of which has not been denied by the respondents. {iv}. R-3 to the reply shows the community as 04, where original No. is clearly tampered with.
QA, No, S50/16684 2019 8 fv} On 01.01.2013, the date on which the application for appointment was preferred, the applicant was In possession of a valid caste certificate issued on 01.12.2012 (R-1 to rejoinder}. The reason why, despite possessing the caste certificate, an OBC would seek entry against UR quota is neither comprehensible not countenanced, s. in Shankar Kumar {O.A, No, 842/2015), this Tribunal was considering the facts that were almost identical to the present OA, a5 exteacted hereunder:
"2. The case of the applicant is that he duly applied for recruitment in erstwhile Gr. QO post in PB 1, GP @ Rs, T800/- against Employment Notice No.: SER RRESO 2012 2S an OBC candidate. He has cloimed that in the application form he duly mentioned category us G4 us applicable for OBC candidates, yet his application was processed as that af on UR and a call fetter for Written Test mentioned him as "UR" He immediately contacted the competent RRC authority for correction of aforesaid serious ntistake who drew his attention to Instruction to the candidates - Para 9 on the opposite side af the aforesaid Admit Card. That "Car minor spelling mistakes in name, father's narne, wrong community or PH category in Admit-card the candidate need not came to RRC/SER. They can appear in the exeminotion with the Admitscard and indicate correct nome, communtty & PH category in onawer sheet ete. They may, however, intimate the RRC/SER ip weiting indicating the discrepancies in the Admit Card enclosing a photocony of the sume so that necessary corrections con be mode in that cose'. He was asked to make on application towards the said correction, He duly complied with the instruction and requested for change of category as "OBC and for consideratian as an "ONC. whereafter he received call letter for PET mentioning the cotegary as 'OBC' snd he was sent for PET since he had duly cleared the written test. When he was nat called for document verification for quite a lang ime he became apprehensive and inguired through RT) about the fate af his consideration, On 10,7,.2014 fie | was given areply which said:
OA, No, 350/1664/2019 9 "On the basis af the documents submitted by you, tem wise remarks of your RT! application 02.04,2014 Is furnished below:
Sh ) information desired | Remarks Na, a My final result was mode | "UR"
in which cotegarys
2. On which reason | was | Daes not come under the purview of nat calfed for Document | RT Act, 2005 .
Verification (DV) 3, My total marks of Written | Recruitment process has not yet heen Exarnination finalized and accordingly, marks secured by ite condidete can be disclosed ofter the finalization of the ponel io terms of para 2 (i) of Railway Board letter No. E(RRB)/2006/34/93 dated 12.05.2006 circulated under | Estt. Srl. No. 130/07 With the above information being furnished your appeal stands dispased off."
He hos claimed that verbally he was informed that he was considered os UR and nat found eligible.
3 The applicant has canvassed that as he hed duly furnished his caste certificate along with application there was no occusion for the respondents to process his application os "URS The respondents hove thereby misdirected theniselves, 4, Per contra respondents averred as under:
The applicant, Sri Shankar Sumar S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav applied for Recruitment in Gr. 'D' post PB-1 with Grade Pay Rs. 180G/- in scale Rs, §200-20000/- against Employment Notice No. SER/RAC(O2/2012 dated 29.09.2012.
{6} He appeared in the Written Examination and came out successful, After written examination he wos called for Physical Efficlency Test {PET} which was held on 13.02.2014 and he qualified in the PET. Sri Kumar was pot called for Bacument Verification as fe was not shortlisted for nest stage of recruitment process ie. Document Verification as well as pre recruitment medical examination. Since he had net enclosed the OBC certificate. clang with his application, he was called for written examination os a UR candidate and as be had not secured the cut off marks for Document Verification as a UR candidate, he wes not cofied far Dacument Verification.
O.A, No, 350/1864/2019 10 The respondents fave contended that the applicant applied for Recruitment in Gr. 'D' pest in PB- with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- in scale Rs. 5200- 20000/- against | Emplayment Notice No.: SER/RRC/O2/2012 dated 29.09.2012 as an OBC candidate but he had not enclosed the OBC Certificate along with his application, .
5. Since the respondents categarically denied receipt of the caste certificate along with the application, we had called for the records. Fram the records we deciphered the following:
{a) The Employment Notification explicitly and unambiguously spells out the following: .
4,i Far all the above vacancies, the age limit will be 18 to 33 years and will be reckaned as on 01-01-2013, 4,2 The upper age limit will be relaxed as under, subject to the production of requisite certificate.
4.2.1. By FIVE Years for SC/ST and by THREE years for OBC candidates _in possession of valid certificates, issued by the appropriate authority, copy of which is to be enclosed for claiming oge relaxation, &.8. fi may please be nated that-
8.8.1 Caste certificate from competent authority for SC/ST and QBC candidates in the prescribed format have to be produced as given in ANNEXURE-| and ANNEXURE- if respectively. The OBC candidate who is nat befanging to the creamy fayer should also submit a declaration vide Annexure tl.
88,2 if the candidates wish to be considered against a specific community column accordingly, their application will be rejected unless proof of community in the prescribed format is enclosed, 8.8.3 The Minority candidate should olso submit a declaration vide Annexure-1X, 8.8.4 Any subsequent representation for change of community status will nat be entertained under any circumstances.
8.8.5 Before applying to the past, the candidates should ensure that he/she fulfils the eligibility and ather criteria. RRI-SER would be free to reject recruitment, and if erroneously appointed, such candidates shall be lable for termination fram service without notice.
OA No. 250/1564/9019 41A bare perusal of the instructions wauld imply, reveal demonstrate that an application seeking consideration as OBC without a supporting caste certificate was ligble te be rejected at the threshold, Yet fhe respondents processed ft upto the stage of PET, whieh inrplies that the application was ina ardey,
2. The application form clearly reveals that the applicant had mentioned his category as "04" meant for "OBC", and sought for age reloxation os OBC since he was over aged for 'UR and his eoplication was processed. Therefore, presurnabfy the application wos in erder and conformed fo the instructions of the netification due to which if wes.
processed,
3. The applicant processed a valid Caste Certificate certifying him as ip, OBC, dated 22.31.02 issued long before publication of the Natification, eye ae .
iS ww A therefore, incall probabilities he would have utilized i while applying for the | 5 USE pest Sey' | cual A, The candidature of the applicant was never cancelled at any point of time.
5, The applicant qualified ot the writhea examinatian uncer relaxed standards meant for OBC candidates, and therefore, he was further subjected to the PET or permitted ta appear at the PET.
6, in view of the revelations supra we are of the considered view thet the respandents' side of the story, that the upplicant hed not furnished caste certificate olang with Ais application, ought to be discarded.
7, in such view of the matter we direct the autharities to process his application further beyond the stage of FET, under reloxed standards as meant for OBC; for decument verification ete. and issue appropriate order if the applicant is found entitled and deserving of an appointment against an OBC vacanty.
& The application, therefore, is allowed. Na-casts."
in an identical matter numbered 0.A. No. 1808/2019 an 04.07.2019, the O.A. was allowed,
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, since the present applicant is identically circumstanced, for parity of reasons, the respondents are directed to conduct medical examination of the applicant and issue appropriate order treating the OA Na, 850/1864/2019 12 applicant as OBC, based on his merit as OBC in the selection, ff nothing alse stands in the way, orders be issued within 3 months. No costs.
(Bidisha Banerjee) (Nandita Chatterjee) Member () Member (A) AP